Month: November 2014

From the consideration of spiritual creatures we proceed to that of corporeal creatures, in the production of which, as Holy Scripture makes mention, three works are found, namely, the work of creation, as given in the words, “In the beginning God created heaven and earth”; the work of distinction as given in the words, “He divided the light from the darkness, and the waters that are above the firmament from the waters that are under the firmament”; and the work of adornment, expressed thus, “Let there be lights in the firmament.”First, then, we must consider the work of creation; secondly, the work of distinction; and thirdly, the work of adornment. Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:(1) Whether corporeal creatures are from God?(2) Whether they were created on account of God’s goodness?(3) Whether they were created by God through the medium of the angels?(4) Whether the forms of bodies are from the angels or immediately from God.Whether corporeal creatures are from God?Objection 1: It would seem that corporeal creatures are not from God. For it is said (Eccles. 3:14): “I have learned that all the works which God hath made, continue for ever.” But visible bodies do not continue for ever, for it is said (2 Cor. 4:18): “The things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” Therefore God did not make visible bodies.Objection 2: Further, it is said (Gn. 1:31): “God saw all things that He had made, and they were very good.” But corporeal creatures are evil, since we find them harmful in many ways; as may be seen in serpents, in the sun’s heat, and other things. Now a thing is called evil, in so far as it is harmful. Corporeal creatures, therefore, are not from God.Objection 3: Further, what is from God does not withdraw us from God, but leads us to Him. But corporeal creatures withdraw us from God. Hence the Apostle (2 Cor. 4:18): “While we look not at the things which are seen.” Corporeal creatures, therefore, are not from God.On the contrary, It is said (Ps. 145:6): “Who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all things that are in them.”I answer that, Certain heretics maintain that visible things are not created by the good God, but by an evil principle, and allege in proof of their error the words of the Apostle (2 Cor. 4:4), “The god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers.” But this position is altogether untenable. For, if things that differ agree in some point, there must be some cause for that agreement, since things diverse in nature cannot be united of themselves. Hence whenever in different things some one thing common to all is found, it must be that these different things receive that one thing from some one cause, as different bodies that are hot receive their heat from fire. But being is found to be common to all things, however otherwise different. There must, therefore, be one principle of being from which all things in whatever way existing have their being, whether they are invisible and spiritual, or visible and corporeal. But the devil is called the god of this world, not as having created it, but because worldlings serve him, of whom also the Apostle says, speaking in the same sense, “Whose god is their belly” (Phil. 3:19).Reply to Objection 1: All the creatures of God in some respects continue for ever, at least as to matter, since what is created will never be annihilated, even though it be corruptible. And the nearer a creature approaches God, Who is immovable, the more it also is immovable. For corruptible creatures endure for ever as regards their matter, though they change as regards their substantial form. But incorruptible creatures endure with respect to their substance, though they are mutable in other respects, such as place, for instance, the heavenly bodies; or the affections, as spiritual creatures. But the Apostle’s words, “The things which are seen are temporal,” though true even as regards such things considered in themselves (in so far as every visible creature is subject to time, either as to being or as to movement), are intended to apply to visible things in so far as they are offered to man as rewards. For such rewards, as consist in these visible things, are temporal; while those that are invisible endure for ever. Hence he said before (2 Cor. 4:17): “It worketh for us . . . an eternal weight of glory.”Reply to Objection 2: Corporeal creatures according to their nature are good, though this good is not universal, but partial and limited, the consequence of which is a certain opposition of contrary qualities, though each quality is good in itself. To those, however, who estimate things, not by the nature thereof, but by the good they themselves can derive therefrom, everything which is harmful to themselves seems simply evil. For they do not reflect that what is in some way injurious to one person, to another is beneficial, and that even to themselves the same thing may be evil in some respects, but good in others. And this could not be, if bodies were essentially evil and harmful.Reply to Objection 3: Creatures of themselves do not withdraw us from God, but lead us to Him; for “the invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (Rom. 1:20). If, then, they withdraw men from God, it is the fault of those who use them foolishly. Thus it is said (Wis. 14:11): “Creatures are turned into a snare to the feet of the unwise.” And the very fact that they can thus withdraw us from God proves that they came from Him, for they cannot lead the foolish away from God except by the allurements of some good that they have from Him.Whether corporeal things were made on account of God’s goodness?Objection 1: It would seem that corporeal creatures were not made on account of God’s goodness. For it is said (Wis. 1:14) that God “created all things that they might be.” Therefore all things were created for their own being’s sake, and not on account of God’s goodness.Objection 2: Further, good has the nature of an end; therefore the greater good in things is the end of the lesser good. But spiritual creatures are related to corporeal creatures, as the greater good to the lesser. Corporeal creatures, therefore, are created for the sake of spiritual creatures, and not on account of God’s goodness.Objection 3: Further, justice does not give unequal things except to the unequal. Now God is just: therefore inequality not created by God must precede all inequality created by Him. But an inequality not created by God can only arise from free-will, and consequently all inequality results from the different movements of free-will. Now, corporeal creatures are unequal to spiritual creatures. Therefore the former were made on account of movements of free-will, and not on account of God’s goodness.On the contrary, It is said (Prov. 16:4): “The Lord hath made all things for Himself.”I answer that, Origen laid down [*Peri Archon ii.] that corporeal creatures were not made according to God’s original purpose, but in punishment of the sin of spiritual creatures. For he maintained that God in the beginning made spiritual creatures only, and all of equal nature; but that of these by the use of free-will some turned to God, and, according to the measure of their conversion, were given an higher or a lower rank, retaining their simplicity; while others turned from God, and became bound to different kinds of bodies according to the degree of their turning away. But this position is erroneous. In the first place, because it is contrary to Scripture, which, after narrating the production of each kind of corporeal creatures, subjoins, “God saw that it was good” (Gn. 1), as if to say that everything was brought into being for the reason that it was good for it to be. But according to Origen’s opinion, the corporeal creature was made, not because it was good that it should be, but that the evil in another might be punished. Secondly, because it would follow that the arrangement, which now exists, of the corporeal world would arise from mere chance. For it the sun’s body was made what it is, that it might serve for a punishment suitable to some sin of a spiritual creature, it would follow, if other spiritual creatures had sinned in the same way as the one to punish whom the sun had been created, that many suns would exist in the world; and so of other things. But such a consequence is altogether inadmissible. Hence we must set aside this theory as false, and consider that the entire universe is constituted by all creatures, as a whole consists of its parts.Now if we wish to assign an end to any whole, and to the parts of that whole, we shall find, first, that each and every part exists for the sake of its proper act, as the eye for the act of seeing; secondly, that less honorable parts exist for the more honorable, as the senses for the intellect, the lungs for the heart; and, thirdly, that all parts are for the perfection of the whole, as the matter for the form, since the parts are, as it were, the matter of the whole. Furthermore, the whole man is on account of an extrinsic end, that end being the fruition of God. So, therefore, in the parts of the universe also every creature exists for its own proper act and perfection, and the less noble for the nobler, as those creatures that are less noble than man exist for the sake of man, whilst each and every creature exists for the perfection of the entire universe. Furthermore, the entire universe, with all its parts, is ordained towards God as its end, inasmuch as it imitates, as it were, and shows forth the Divine goodness, to the glory of God. Reasonable creatures, however, have in some special and higher manner God as their end, since they can attain to Him by their own operations, by knowing and loving Him. Thus it is plain that the Divine goodness is the end of all corporeal things.Reply to Objection 1: In the very fact of any creature possessing being, it represents the Divine being and Its goodness. And, therefore, that God created all things, that they might have being, does not exclude that He created them for His own goodness.Reply to Objection 2: The proximate end does not exclude the ultimate end. Therefore that corporeal creatures were, in a manner, made for the sake of the spiritual, does not prevent their being made on account of God’s goodness.Reply to Objection 3: Equality of justice has its place in retribution, since equal rewards or punishments are due to equal merit or demerit. But this does not apply to things as at first instituted. For just as an architect, without injustice, places stones of the same kind in different parts of a building, not on account of any antecedent difference in the stones, but with a view to securing that perfection of the entire building, which could not be obtained except by the different positions of the stones; even so, God from the beginning, to secure perfection in the universe, has set therein creatures of various and unequal natures, according to His wisdom, and without injustice, since no diversity of merit is presupposed.Whether corporeal creatures were produced by God through the medium of the angels?Objection 1: It would seem that corporeal creatures were produced by God through the medium of the angels. For, as all things are governed by the Divine wisdom, so by it were all things made, according to Ps. 103:24 “Thou hast made all things in wisdom.” But “it belongs to wisdom to ordain,” as stated in the beginning of the Metaphysics (i, 2). Hence in the government of things the lower is ruled by the higher in a certain fitting order, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 4). Therefore in the production of things it was ordained that the corporeal should be produced by the spiritual, as the lower by the higher.Objection 2: Further, diversity of effects shows diversity of causes, since like always produces like. It then all creatures, both spiritual and corporeal, were produced immediately by God, there would be no diversity in creatures, for one would not be further removed from God than another. But this is clearly false; for the Philosopher says that some things are corruptible because they are far removed from God (De Gen. et Corrup. ii, text. 59).Objection 3: Further, infinite power is not required to produce a finite effect. But every corporeal thing is finite. Therefore, it could be, and was, produced by the finite power of spiritual creatures: for in suchlike beings there is no distinction between what is and what is possible: especially as no dignity befitting a nature is denied to that nature, unless it be in punishment of a fault.On the contrary, It is said (Gn. 1:1): “In the beginning God created heaven and earth”; by which are understood corporeal creatures. These, therefore, were produced immediately by God.I answer that, Some have maintained that creatures proceeded from God by degrees, in such a way that the first creature proceeded from Him immediately, and in its turn produced another, and so on until the production of corporeal creatures. But this position is untenable, since the first production of corporeal creatures is by creation, by which matter itself is produced: for in the act of coming into being the imperfect must be made before the perfect: and it is impossible that anything should be created, save by God alone.In proof whereof it must be borne in mind that the higher the cause, the more numerous the objects to which its causation extends. Now the underlying principle in things is always more universal than that which informs and restricts it; thus, being is more universal than living, living than understanding, matter than form. The more widely, then, one thing underlies others, the more directly does that thing proceed from a higher cause. Thus the thing that underlies primarily all things, belongs properly to the causality of the supreme cause. Therefore no secondary cause can produce anything, unless there is presupposed in the thing produced something that is caused by a higher cause. But creation is the production of a thing in its entire substance, nothing being presupposed either uncreated or created. Hence it remains that nothing can create except God alone, Who is the first cause. Therefore, in order to show that all bodies were created immediately by God, Moses said: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.”Reply to Objection 1: In the production of things an order exists, but not such that one creature is created by another, for that is impossible; but rather such that by the Divine wisdom diverse grades are constituted in creatures.Reply to Objection 2: God Himself, though one, has knowledge of many and different things without detriment to the simplicity of His nature, as has been shown above (Q[15], A[2]); so that by His wisdom He is the cause of diverse things as known by Him, even as an artificer, by apprehending diverse forms, produces diverse works of art.Reply to Objection 3: The amount of the power of an agent is measured not only by the thing made, but also by the manner of making it; for one and the same thing is made in one way by a higher power, in another by a lower. But the production of finite things, where nothing is presupposed as existing, is the work of infinite power, and, as such, can belong to no creature.Whether the forms of bodies are from the angels?Objection 1: It would seem that the forms of bodies come from the angels. For Boethius says (De Trin. i): “From forms that are without matter come the forms that are in matter.” But forms that are without matter are spiritual substances, and forms that are in matter are the forms of bodies. Therefore, the forms of bodies are from spiritual substances.Objection 2: Further, all that is such by participation is reduced to that which is such by its essence. But spiritual substances are forms essentially, whereas corporeal creatures have forms by participation. Therefore the forms of corporeal things are derived from spiritual substances.Objection 3: Further, spiritual substances have more power of causation than the heavenly bodies. But the heavenly bodies give form to things here below, for which reason they are said to cause generation and corruption. Much more, therefore, are material forms derived from spiritual substances.On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 8): “We must not suppose that this corporeal matter serves the angels at their nod, but rather that it obeys God thus.” But corporeal matter may be said thus to serve that from which it receives its form. Corporeal forms, then, are not from the angels, but from God.I answer that, It was the opinion of some that all corporeal forms are derived from spiritual substances, which we call the angels. And there are two ways in which this has been stated. For Plato held that the forms of corporeal matter are derived from, and formed by, forms immaterially subsisting, by a kind of participation. Thus he held that there exists an immaterial man, and an immaterial horse, and so forth, and that from such the individual sensible things that we see are constituted, in so far as in corporeal matter there abides the impression received from these separate forms, by a kind of assimilation, or as he calls it, “participation” (Phaedo xlix). And, according to the Platonists, the order of forms corresponds to the order of those separate substances; for example, that there is a single separate substance, which is horse and the cause of all horses, whilst above this is separate life, or “per se” life, as they term it, which is the cause of all life, and that above this again is that which they call being itself, which is the cause of all being. Avicenna, however, and certain others, have maintained that the forms of corporeal things do not subsist “per se” in matter, but in the intellect only. Thus they say that from forms existing in the intellect of spiritual creatures (called “intelligences” by them, but “angels” by us) proceed all the forms of corporeal matter, as the form of his handiwork proceeds from the forms in the mind of the craftsman. This theory seems to be the same as that of certain heretics of modern times, who say that God indeed created all things, but that the devil formed corporeal matter, and differentiated it into species.But all these opinions seem to have a common origin; they all, in fact, sought for a cause of forms as though the form were of itself brought into being. Whereas, as Aristotle (Metaph. vii, text. 26,27,28), proves, what is, properly speaking, made, is the “composite.” Now, such are the forms of corruptible things that at one time they exist and at another exist not, without being themselves generated or corrupted, but by reason of the generation or corruption of the “composite”; since even forms have not being, but composites have being through forms: for, according to a thing’s mode of being, is the mode in which it is brought into being. Since, then, like is produced from like, we must not look for the cause of corporeal forms in any immaterial form, but in something that is composite, as this fire is generated by that fire. Corporeal forms, therefore, are caused, not as emanations from some immaterial form, but by matter being brought from potentiality into act by some composite agent. But since the composite agent, which is a body, is moved by a created spiritual substance, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 4,5), it follows further that even corporeal forms are derived from spiritual substances, not emanating from them, but as the term of their movement. And, further still, the species of the angelic intellect, which are, as it were, the seminal types of corporeal forms, must be referred to God as the first cause. But in the first production of corporeal creatures no transmutation from potentiality to act can have taken place, and accordingly, the corporeal forms that bodies had when first produced came immediately form God, whose bidding alone matter obeys, as its own proper cause. To signify this, Moses prefaces each work with the words, “God said, Let this thing be,” or “that,” to denote the formation of all things by the Word of God, from Whom, according to Augustine [*Tract. i. in Joan. and Gen. ad lit. i. 4], is “all form and fitness and concord of parts.”Reply to Objection 1: By immaterial forms Boethius understands the types of things in the mind of God. Thus the Apostle says (Heb. 11:3): “By faith we understand that the world was framed by the Word of God; that from invisible things visible things might be made.” But if by immaterial forms he understands the angels, we say that from them come material forms, not by emanation, but by motion.Reply to Objection 2: Forms received into matter are to be referred, not to self-subsisting forms of the same type, as the Platonists held, but either to intelligible forms of the angelic intellect, from which they proceed by movement, or, still higher, to the types in the Divine intellect, by which the seeds of forms are implanted in created things, that they may be able to be brought by movement into act.Reply to Objection 3: The heavenly bodies inform earthly ones by movement, not by emanation. *

Christmas Novena Cards:
I am sending this out a bit early because I want to make sure anyone who wanted to order the Christmas Novena Cards had time to mail in their check or money order. We need to have your payment and the names and your intentions mailed in by November 20th. This is still headed up my Mary B in CT. We are working together on this to support the resistance.
Make checks payable to: Our Lady of Mount Carmel
Mail names of the person or persons and the intentions with your checks or money orders to Tammy Johnson/ Our Lady of Sorrows, 33 Shaker Road, Northfield, NH 03276
Advent is a time of mourning as we wait for the coming of Our Lord. A time for fasting and penance, a mini lent if you will.
So in that vein I wanted to try to put together some activity to help young and old learn and practice Advent with a stronger devotion this year. So I mentioned that to my good friend and Resistance sister Kate who found this sight! I couldn’t believe all the wonderful traditional activities on this sight really beautiful and informative sight, enjoy!

http://www.sanctussimplicitus.com/advent.html

More news from the Resistance- two items:
First: The recent events in the Northeast Resistance chapels regarding the arrival of Fr. Zendejas has raised many questions on the path of least ‘Resistance’ in terms of having a priest serve only a few local chapels rather than ministering to all those chapels in a given location. We have included this thought-provoking posted from Arch Bishop Lefebvre (ABL) Forum for your consideration:
Leaozinha said: I understand your frustration but what Fr. Pfeiffer has done for so many of us is unheard of. To say he has been a blessing for us in the northeast is a severe understatement.
Many of us are trying to understand what happened with Fr. Zendejas, and want to think the best of him. There are, however, some things that no one has yet mentioned. I am unsure about New Jersey, but I know that in Ct…He (Fr. Z) specifically asked the coordinators not to send out an email to the Mission, informing people of the mass. So a number of us (who are not originally from Ridgefield/ex-SSPX and don’t have many connections, except that email list) had no idea about the Mass offered by Fr. Z (when we have driven hours, and at a great cost, to pretty much every Mass offered in Danbury for the past two years). We were, naturally, disappointed to not receive the Blessed Sacrament, but also puzzled as to why the Mass was invite-only…whether by phone or personal emails, we are uncertain.
It is hard to imagine why a priest would not want as many souls as possible gaining the graces of the Holy Sacrifice.
If he is going to be offering weekly Mass in Ct…We wonder how we can get an invite =/.
For the people who are outside of our area, the situation seems very black and white. (Fr. P=bad), but it is more puzzling than what is shown on the internet and even in his sermons. I think we have a right to trust Fr. Pfeiffer and he has a right, or rather a duty, to be mindful of the chapels he started under constant ridicule.
God Bless
We are so very grateful to Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko for answering our prayers and requests for a Mass in the New Hampshire area, so far out of their way when in the Northeast. We are also very grateful, in these times, when Our Lord said that but for the grace of God, even the elect would lose their Faith, that the good priests of the Resistance have been as clear as crystal about the doctrines of our Faith. They have been true Shepards to their flocks. For this reason, among many others, we ask you to join your prayers with ours and over a novena to the Holy Ghost for their continued gifts of discernment, wisdom, and prudence.
Here is a link to Fr. Pfeiffer’s Nov. 2nd sermon, a beautiful and clarifying update on the events of the last several weeks, specifically in New England:
http://resistere.org/media.php?query=Videos&page=0&limit=21&vid_person=

The time has come that the true priest of the resistance have been preaching about, we are at war! And we have been attacked. And if you feel this does not affect you, or think it could not happen where you are, think again.
In the conference in Canada, after the confirmations, Bishop Williamson was talking about how it’s over? That we will have to learn to live without our sacraments? Really? With all due respect to the Bishop, what does he think we have been doing? At least all the resistance souls who stand already on their faith and not their sacraments. That’s why we need Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko, Fr. Voigt, etc.
Where do you stand? The time is over for sitting in the pew, getting your Sunday sacraments and going back into your worldly activities. If you think this is all that is required in these times to save your souls, remember all the saints wanted to live in these times, do you think it was because they thought it was going to be easy?? My guess would be no!
The graces are coming to us, we already know we do not need the Sacraments to the degree we once enjoyed, and we need only our Faith! God will always give you what you need, Fear Not!
Christ asked when I come back will there be any faith on earth. Faith my dear friends, do you trust God or not?
I hear some are saying the resistance is over, or defeated. They are mocking our Godly priest (they mocked Christ too). But this is not our fight, this one belongs to Mary. Stand with the Mother of Christ and Christ will stand with you. Pray hard for her victory, it is coming.
Pray your Rosary and increase your devotion to it, were your scapular. Ladies wear your skirts. We make better soldiers when we imitate the Mother of God.
What are your thoughts? Ourladyofsorrows7.nh@gmail.com

Second: Recently we had another situation occur within the resistance that caused strife. A coordinators list was put together over the last two years at the request of Fr. Pfeiffer so people seeking out a Resistance priest and mass could find one closest to them.
Most of you were probably not aware that there was a list of coordinators for the US and Canada because it was never made public, like the ones in Asia and other parts of the globe. Why? I am not 100% sure. As for myself (a coordinator) I thought it would be good to have the information out there so people looking for a Resistance mass could find a coordinator somewhat easily to contact and ask about upcoming masses.
About a week ago the list was published on the internet, some of the coordinators on the list were upset by this and lashed out at the person responsible for the publication and the list was removed from the internet.
I believe most coordinators (me included) were okay with the publication, maybe a call first may have been in order to insure information was correct perhaps, but no matter it was done.
I do understand some feel maybe too much information was published, but if it is going to help the
Resistance and our priest, shouldn’t we try work for the expansion of this endeavor rather than railing against it and throwing in the towel?
Is this just a war of personalities or is it a war for the faith? Hint …it is a war for the faith! We can’t keep fighting each other. We need to stand with the priest that are giving us clear and true answers, not those who are giving us want we want to hear!
Let us take the good and leave the bad from the coordinators contact information debacle. Let us compile a list of acceptable email and or phone numbers as contacts for all the Resistance chapels.
I myself have seen much good come from the publication of this list. ..I was approached twice in the first days of its publication asking to come to our chapel the next time Mass is offered. And isn’t that the whole point, my friends? That as many people as are inspired to do so find the Truth. Isn’t that why we are here, why God has allowed us to be in the position of coordinators? So that we can assist the work of the priests in their quest for bringing souls to God and His Truth?
Let us turn the bad of this experience into good for God.
Advent is a good time to reflect and really look inside ourselves. Root out pride, ask what can we do for others, others in the resistance who are isolated, what can we do for our good priests, what can we give up, can we pray more???
We can’t look around anymore to the person in the pew next to us to see what they are doing. They are no longer there, we must look inward and not to see so much what it is that we need, but what it is that we have to give, what we can do to make a difference in the souls of the people just waking up to this crisis?
I know this situation is less than perfect, heck it is the next best step to a train wreck but it is still going and it is still growing. And just like every other family (which we are, like it or not) we are going to fight, we are going to disagree with how something should be done.
But the answer is always the same. Mary! She will help us, we just need to stop giving way to anger and hostility and look to find a way to work together if it is really the motivation in our hearts to help the resistance.
Fr. Pfeiffer’s latest sermon, he touches on this topic, look at the pain we are putting these good men through and for what? They are killing themselves running all over the world for us and we repay them with petty bickering? They truly do love every one of us, even the ones hurting them. We can do better than this. What is the greater good?
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/
Pseudo- SSPX News: From: Operation Survival Crusader: SSPX Alert!
From the Catholics at Father.Themann.Answered@gmail.com
What do you think Bishop Fellay would say is “The Big Error” of Vatican II? Is it doctrinal error? No! He says it is an error in the council’s method. He says that the council’s “big error” is using the wrong means!
In his sermon at Lourdes on October 26, 2014, here is what Bishop Fellay says:
The big error of the council was to look in human means to solve an unhuman problem. Losing the influence of the people and trying to recuperate it, they tried the

human way.
Listen to his words beginning at 34:21, posted by the SSPX at this location: http://sspx.org/en/media/audio/bishop-fellays-sermon-lourdes-pilgrimage-5320
So Bishop Fellay says that Vatican II’s “big error” was an error in approach! Surely, in the current reconciliation talks between the Vatican and the SSPX, they will not let a mere disagreement about approach get in the way of reconciliation!
Further, in this same sermon, in the next sentence, Bishop Fellay says that the Church was already declining at the beginning of Vatican II. This means that Vatican II is not responsible for causing the beginning of the Church’s decline! Again, here is what Bishop Fellay says:
“The big error of the council was to look in human means to solve an unhuman problem. Losing the influence of the people and trying to recuperate it, they tried the human way”. Id.
So Bishop Fellay says that the council’s task was to solve the problem that already existed: viz., the Church was declining in influence. The conciliar church asserts this same falsehood: that Vatican II is the not cause of the great problems in the Church.
Preview attachment Bp. F says VII biggest error is method & VII did not start Church decline.pdf
Bp. F says VII biggest error is method & VII did not start Church decline.

Prayers for our Priests: December is full of many beautiful events that take place during the time of Advent. One of my favourite is the feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe. It is also a favourite as you all may know, of our beloved resistance priests, so in all the turmoil and tribulation that these brave men are facing for the love of our souls, I would like to ask all of you to join me in a Novena to Our Lady of Guadalupe for their intentions. To ask Our Lady to strengthen them, to encourage them, to build them up and to keep them safe from their enemies, physical and spiritual.
I would like to send them a Christmas card with all of your names attached that want to participate. Send your name to ourladyofsorrows7.nh@gmail.com
You are more than welcome to pray the Novena privately and not send me your name for the card, but it would be lovely to let them know we are here for them too. You could also send a card directly to the Priest of the resistance and let them know you have participated in this Novena for them.
Our Lady of Mt. Carmel/Priests of the Resistance, 1730 North Stillwell Rd., Boston, KY #40107
Novena to Our lady of Guadalupe: Prayers start on December 4th and go to the 12th (feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe)

Novena in Honor of Our Lady of Guadalupe
First Day Dearest Lady of Guadalupe, fruitful Mother of holiness, teach me your ways of gentleness and strength. Hear my humble prayer offered with heartfelt confidence to beg this favor……
Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory.
Second Day O Mary, conceived without sin, I come to your throne of grace to share the fervent devotion of your faithful Mexican children who call to you under the glorious Aztec title of Guadalupe. Obtain for me a lively faith to do your Son’s holy will always: May His will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory.
Third Day O Mary, whose Immaculate Heart was pierced by seven swords of grief, help me to walk valiantly amid the sharp thorns strewn across my pathway. Obtain for me the strength to be a true imitator of you. This I ask you, my dear Mother.
Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory.
Fourth Day Dearest Mother of Guadalupe, I beg you for a fortified will to imitate your divine Son’s charity, to always seek the good of others in need. Grant me this, I humbly ask of you. Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory.
Fifth Day O most holy Mother, I beg you to obtain for me pardon of all my sins, abundant graces to serve your Son more faithfully from now on, and lastly, the grace to praise Him with you forever in heaven. Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory.
Sixth Day Mary, Mother of vocations, multiply priestly vocations and fill the earth with religious houses which will be light and warmth for the world, safety in stormy nights. Beg your Son to send us many priests and religious. This we ask of you, O Mother. Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory.
Seventh Day O Lady of Guadalupe, we beg you that parents live a holy life and educate their children in a Christian manner; that children obey and follow the directions of their parents; that all members of the family pray and worship together. This we ask of you, O Mother.
Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory.
Eighth Day With my heart full of the most sincere veneration, I prostrate myself before you, O Mother, to ask you to obtain for me the grace to fulfill the duties of my state in life with faithfulness and constancy.
Our father, Hail Mary, Glory.
Ninth Day O God, You have been pleased to bestow upon us unceasing favors by having placed us under the special protection of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary. Grant us, your humble servants, who rejoice in honoring her today upon earth, the happiness of seeing her face to face in heaven.
Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory.
Prayer for the living: Please join us in offering three Hail Mary’s a day for the members of the Resistance chapels.
Prayer for the dead: Please let us know if you would like a deceased friend or relative to be remembered by others in their prayers.
Updates, and comments from you:
Our Lady of Sorrows Chaplet Dominican Order: It was brought to my attention that the Chaplet instruction I shared last month (according to St. Louis De Montfort) was not the one, one of our readers preferred and wanted me to share hers as well. Thank you, Jan
From the Raccolta (Catholic Church book of Indulgenced prayers)
Note: all prayers said in honor of the Dolors of the Blessed Virgin Mary are indulgenced. Even if you are very busy and can only say one Hail Mary for each mystery you will get the same indulgences.
Dominican- WAY OF SAYING THE CHAPLET.
Act of Contrition.
O my Lord, Thou who alone art most worthy of my love, behold me standing before Thy Divine Presence all in confusion at the thought of the many grievous injuries I have done Thee. I ask Thy pardon for them with my whole heart, repenting of them purely for love of Thee, and hating and loathing them above every other evil of this life, when I think of Thy infinite goodness. As I would rather have died a thousand times than have offended Thee, so now I am most firmly resolved to lose my life rather than offend Thee again. My crucified Jesus, I firmly purpose to cleanse my soul as soon as possible by Thy most Precious Blood in the Sacrament of Penance. And thou, most tender Virgin, Mother of Mercy and Refuge of sinners, do thou obtain for me the pardon of sin by virtue of thy bitter pains; whilst praying according to the mind of so many holy Pontiffs in order to obtain the indulgences granted to this thy holy Rosary, I hope thereby to obtain remission of all pains due to my sins.
1. With this confidence in my heart, I meditate on the First Sorrow, when Mary, Virgin Mother of my God, presented Jesus, her only Son, in the Temple, laid Him in the arms of holy aged Simeon, and heard his prophetic word, “This One shall be a sword of pain to pierce thine own heart,” foretelling thereby the Passion and Death of her Son Jesus. One Pater noster and seven Ave Maria’s.
ii. The Second Sorrow of the Blessed Virgin was when she was obliged to fly into Egypt by reason of the persecution of cruel Herod, who impiously sought to slay her well-beloved Son. One Pater noster and seven Ave Maria’s.
iii. The Third Sorrow of the Blessed Virgin was when, after having gone up to Jerusalem at the Paschal Feast with Joseph her spouse and Jesus her dear Son, she lost Him on her return to her poor house, and for three days bewailed the loss of her beloved only Son. One Pater noster and seven Ave Maria’s.
iv. The Fourth Sorrow of the Blessed Virgin was when she met her dear Son Jesus carrying on His tender shoulders the heavy cross whereon He was to be crucified for our salvation. One Pater noster and seven Ave Maria’s.
v. The Fifth Sorrow of the Blessed Virgin was when she saw her Son Jesus raised upon the tree of the cross, and Blood pouring forth from every part of His Sacred Body; and when then, after three long hours’ agony, she beheld Him die. One Pater noster and seven Ave Maria’s.
vi. The Sixth Sorrow of the Blessed Virgin was when she saw the lance cleave the Sacred Side of Jesus, her beloved Son, and when taken down from the cross, His Holy Body was laid in her purest bosom. One Pater noster and seven Ave Maria’s.
vii. The Seventh and last sorrow of the Blessed Virgin, Queen and Advocate of us her servants, miserable sinners, was when she saw the Holy Body of her Son buried in the grave. One Pater noster and seven Ave Maria’s.
Then say three Ave Maria’s in veneration of the tears which Mary shed in her sorrows, to obtain thereby true sorrow for sins and the holy Indulgences attached to this pious exercise.
V. Pray for us, Virgin most sorrowful.
R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Let us pray.
Grant, we beseech Thee, O Lord Jesus Christ that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Thy Mother, may intercede for us before the throne of Thy mercy, now and at the hour of our death, whose most holy soul was transfixed with the sword of sorrow in the hour of Thine own Passion. Through Thee, Jesus Christ, Savior of the world, who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Ghost for ever and ever. Amen

THE PUNISHMENT OF THE DEMONS (Saint Thomas Aquinas)

It now remains as a sequel to deal with the punishment of the demons; under which heading there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Of their darkness of intellect;

(2) Of their obstinacy of will;

(3) Of their grief;

(4) Of their place of punishment.

Whether the demons’ intellect is darkened by privation of the knowledge of all truth?

Objection 1: It would seem that the demons’ intellect is darkened by being deprived of the knowledge of all truth. For it they knew any truth at all, they would most of all know themselves; which is to know separated substances. But this is not in keeping with their unhappiness: for this seems to belong to great happiness, insomuch as that some writers have assigned as man’s last happiness the knowledge of the separated substances. Therefore the demons are deprived of all knowledge of truth.

Objection 2: Further, what is most manifest in its nature, seems to be specially manifest to the angels, whether good or bad. That the same is not manifest with regard to ourselves, comes from the weakness of our intellect which draws its knowledge from phantasms; as it comes from the weakness of its eye that the owl cannot behold the light of the sun. But the demons cannot know God, Who is most manifest of Himself, because He is the sovereign truth; and this is because they are not clean of heart, whereby alone can God be seen. Therefore neither can they know other things.

Objection 3: Further, according to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. iv, 22), the proper knowledge of the angels is twofold; namely, morning and evening. But the demons have no morning knowledge, because they do not see things in the Word; nor have they the evening knowledge, because this evening knowledge refers the things known to the Creator’s praise (hence, after “evening” comes “morning” [Gn. 1]). Therefore the demons can have no knowledge of things.

Objection 4: Further, the angels at their creation knew the mystery of the kingdom of God, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. v, 19; De Civ. Dei xi). But the demons are deprived of such knowledge: “for if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory,” as is said 1 Cor. 2:8. Therefore, for the same reason, they are deprived of all other knowledge of truth.

Objection 5: Further, whatever truth anyone knows is known either naturally, as we know first principles; or by deriving it from someone else, as we know by learning; or by long experience, as the things we learn by discovery. Now, the demons cannot know the truth by their own nature, because, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 33), the good angels are separated from them as light is from darkness; and every manifestation is made through light, as is said Eph. 5:13. In like manner they cannot learn by revelation, nor by learning from the good angels: because “there is no fellowship of light with darkness [*Vulg.: ‘What fellowship hath . . . ?’]” (2 Cor. 6:14). Nor can they learn by long experience: because experience comes of the senses. Consequently there is no knowledge of truth in them.

On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that, “certain gifts were bestowed upon the demons which, we say, have not been changed at all, but remain entire and most brilliant.” Now, the knowledge of truth stands among those natural gifts. Consequently there is some knowledge of truth in them.

I answer that, The knowledge of truth is twofold: one which comes of nature, and one which comes of grace. The knowledge which comes of grace is likewise twofold: the first is purely speculative, as when Divine secrets are imparted to an individual; the other is effective, and produces love for God; which knowledge properly belongs to the gift of wisdom.

Of these three kinds of knowledge the first was neither taken away nor lessened in the demons. For it follows from the very nature of the angel, who, according to his nature, is an intellect or mind: since on account of the simplicity of his substance, nothing can be withdrawn from his nature, so as to punish him by subtracting from his natural powers, as a man is punished by being deprived of a hand or a foot or of something else. Therefore Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that the natural gifts remain entire in them. Consequently their natural knowledge was not diminished. The second kind of knowledge, however, which comes of grace, and consists in speculation, has not been utterly taken away from them, but lessened; because, of these Divine secrets only so much is revealed to them as is necessary; and that is done either by means of the angels, or “through some temporal workings of Divine power,” as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 21); but not in the same degree as to the holy angels, to whom many more things are revealed, and more fully, in the Word Himself. But of the third knowledge, as likewise of charity, they are utterly deprived.

Reply to Objection 1: Happiness consists in self-application to something higher. The separated substances are above us in the order of nature; hence man can have happiness of a kind by knowing the separated substances, although his perfect happiness consists in knowing the first substance, namely, God. But it is quite natural for one separate substance to know another; as it is natural for us to know sensible natures. Hence, as man’s happiness does not consist in knowing sensible natures; so neither does the angel’s happiness consist in knowing separated substances.

Reply to Objection 2: What is most manifest in its nature is hidden from us by its surpassing the bounds of our intellect; and not merely because our intellect draws knowledge from phantasms. Now the Divine substance surpasses the proportion not only of the human intellect, but even of the angelic. Consequently, not even an angel can of his own nature know God’s substance. Yet on account of the perfection of his intellect he can of his nature have a higher knowledge of God than man can have. Such knowledge of God remains also in the demons. Although they do not possess the purity which comes with grace, nevertheless they have purity of nature; and this suffices for the knowledge of God which belongs to them from their nature.

Reply to Objection 3: The creature is darkness in comparison with the excellence of the Divine light; and therefore the creature’s knowledge in its own nature is called “evening” knowledge. For the evening is akin to darkness, yet it possesses some light: but when the light fails utterly, then it is night. So then the knowledge of things in their own nature, when referred to the praise of the Creator, as it is in the good angels, has something of the Divine light, and can be called evening knowledge; but if it be not referred to God, as is the case with the demons, it is not called evening, but “nocturnal” knowledge. Accordingly we read in Gn. 1:5 that the darkness, which God separated from the light, “He called night.”

Reply to Objection 4: All the angels had some knowledge from the very beginning respecting the mystery of God’s kingdom, which found its completion in Christ; and most of all from the moment when they were beatified by the vision of the Word, which vision the demons never had. Yet all the angels did not fully and equally apprehend it; hence the demons much less fully understood the mystery of the Incarnation, when Christ was in the world. For, as Augustine observes (De Civ. Dei ix, 21), “It was not manifested to them as it was to the holy angels, who enjoy a participated eternity of the Word; but it was made known by some temporal effects, so as to strike terror into them.” For had they fully and certainly known that He was the Son of God and the effect of His passion, they would never have procured the crucifixion of the Lord of glory.

Reply to Objection 5: The demons know a truth in three ways: first of all by the subtlety of their nature; for although they are darkened by privation of the light of grace, yet they are enlightened by the light of their intellectual nature: secondly, by revelation from the holy angels; for while not agreeing with them in conformity of will, they do agree, nevertheless, by their likeness of intellectual nature, according to which they can accept what is manifested by others: thirdly, they know by long experience; not as deriving it from the senses; but when the similitude of their innate intelligible species is completed in individual things, they know some things as present, which they previously did not know would come to pass, as we said when dealing with the knowledge of the angels (Q[57], A[3], ad 3).

Whether the will of the demons is obstinate in evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will of the demons is not obstinate in evil. For liberty of will belongs to the nature of an intellectual being, which nature remains in the demons, as we said above (A[1]). But liberty of will is directly and firstly ordained to good rather than to evil. Therefore the demons’ will is not so obstinate in evil as not to be able to return to what is good.

Objection 2: Further, since God’s mercy is infinite, it is greater than the demons’ malice, which is finite. But no one returns from the malice of sin to the goodness of justice save through God’s mercy. Therefore the demons can likewise return from their state of malice to the state of justice.

Objection 3: Further, if the demons have a will obstinate in evil, then their will would be especially obstinate in the sin whereby they fell. But that sin, namely, pride, is in them no longer; because the motive for the sin no longer endures, namely, excellence. Therefore the demon is not obstinate in malice.

Objection 4: Further, Gregory says (Moral. iv) that man can be reinstated by another, since he fell through another. But, as was observed already (Q[63], A[8]), the lower demons fell through the highest one. Therefore their fall can be repaired by another. Consequently they are not obstinate in malice.

Objection 5: Further, whoever is obstinate in malice, never performs any good work. But the demon performs some good works: for he confesses the truth, saying to Christ: “I know Who Thou art, the holy one of God” (Mk. 1:24). “The demons” also “believe and tremble” (Jam. 2:19). And Dionysius observes (Div. Nom. iv), that “they desire what is good and best, which is, to be, to live, to understand.” Therefore they are not obstinate in malice.

On the contrary, It is said (Ps. 73:23): “The pride of them that hate Thee, ascendeth continually”; and this is understood of the demons. Therefore they remain ever obstinate in their malice.

I answer that, It was Origen’s opinion [*Peri Archon i. 6] that every will of the creature can by reason of free-will be inclined to good and evil; with the exception of the soul of Christ on account of the union of the Word. Such a statement deprives angels and saints of true beatitude, because everlasting stability is of the very nature of true beatitude; hence it is termed “life everlasting.” It is also contrary to the authority of Sacred Scripture, which declares that demons and wicked men shall be sent “into everlasting punishment,” and the good brought “into everlasting life.” Consequently such an opinion must be considered erroneous; while according to Catholic Faith, it must be held firmly both that the will of the good angels is confirmed in good, and that the will of the demons is obstinate in evil.

We must seek for the cause of this obstinacy, not in the gravity of the sin, but in the condition of their nature or state. For as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii), “death is to men, what the fall is to the angels.” Now it is clear that all the mortal sins of men, grave or less grave, are pardonable before death; whereas after death they are without remission and endure for ever.

To find the cause, then, of this obstinacy, it must be borne in mind that the appetitive power is in all things proportioned to the apprehensive, whereby it is moved, as the movable by its mover. For the sensitive appetite seeks a particular good; while the will seeks the universal good, as was said above (Q[59], A[1]); as also the sense apprehends particular objects, while the intellect considers universals. Now the angel’s apprehension differs from man’s in this respect, that the angel by his intellect apprehends immovably, as we apprehend immovably first principles which are the object of the habit of “intelligence”; whereas man by his reason apprehends movably, passing from one consideration to another; and having the way open by which he may proceed to either of two opposites. Consequently man’s will adheres to a thing movably, and with the power of forsaking it and of clinging to the opposite; whereas the angel’s will adheres fixedly and immovably. Therefore, if his will be considered before its adhesion, it can freely adhere either to this or to its opposite (namely, in such things as he does not will naturally); but after he has once adhered, he clings immovably. So it is customary to say that man’s free-will is flexible to the opposite both before and after choice; but the angel’s free-will is flexible either opposite before the choice, but not after. Therefore the good angels who adhered to justice, were confirmed therein; whereas the wicked ones, sinning, are obstinate in sin. Later on we shall treat of the obstinacy of men who are damned (SP, Q[98], AA[1], 2).

Reply to Objection 1: The good and wicked angels have free-will, but according to the manner and condition of their state, as has been said.

Reply to Objection 2: God’s mercy delivers from sin those who repent. But such as are not capable of repenting, cling immovably to sin, and are not delivered by the Divine mercy.

Reply to Objection 3: The devil’s first sin still remains in him according to desire; although not as to his believing that he can obtain what he desired. Even so, if a man were to believe that he can commit murder, and wills to commit it, and afterwards the power is taken from him; nevertheless, the will to murder can stay with him, so that he would he had done it, or still would do it if he could.

Reply to Objection 4: The fact that man sinned from another’s suggestion, is not the whole cause of man’s sin being pardonable. Consequently the argument does not hold good.

Reply to Objection 5: A demon’s act is twofold. One comes of deliberate will; and this is properly called his own act. Such an act on the demon’s part is always wicked; because, although at times he does something good, yet he does not do it well; as when he tells the truth in order to deceive; and when he believes and confesses, yet not willingly, but compelled by the evidence of things. Another kind of act is natural to the demon; this can be good and bears witness to the goodness of nature. Yet he abuses even such good acts to evil purpose.

Whether there is sorrow in the demons?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is no sorrow in the demons. For since sorrow and joy are opposites, they cannot be together in the same subject. But there is joy in the demons: for Augustine writing against the Maniches (De Gen. Contra Manich. ii, 17) says: “The devil has power over them who despise God’s commandments, and he rejoices over this sinister power.” Therefore there is no sorrow in the demons.

Objection 2: Further, sorrow is the cause of fear, for those things cause fear while they are future, which cause sorrow when they are present. But there is no fear in the demons, according to Job 41:24, “Who was made to fear no one.” Therefore there is no grief in the demons.

Objection 3: Further, it is a good thing to be sorry for evil. But the demons can do no good action. Therefore they cannot be sorry, at least for the evil of sin; which applies to the worm of conscience.

On the contrary, The demon’s sin is greater than man’s sin. But man is punished with sorrow on account of the pleasure taken in sin, according toApoc. 18:7, “As much as she hath glorified herself, and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her.” Consequently much more is the devil punished with the grief of sorrow, because he especially glorified himself.

I answer that, Fear, sorrow, joy, and the like, so far as they are passions, cannot exist in the demons; for thus they are proper to the sensitive appetite, which is a power in a corporeal organ. According, however, as they denote simple acts of the will, they can be in the demons. And it must be said that there is sorrow in them; because sorrow, as denoting a simple act of the will, is nothing else than the resistance of the will to what is, or to what is not. Now it is evident that the demons would wish many things not to be, which are, and others to be, which are not: for, out of envy, they would wish others to be damned, who are saved. Consequently, sorrow must be said to exist in them: and especially because it is of the very notion of punishment for it to be repugnant to the will. Moreover, they are deprived of happiness, which they desire naturally; and their wicked will is curbed in many respects.

Reply to Objection 1: Joy and sorrow about the same thing are opposites, but not about different things. Hence there is nothing to hinder a man from being sorry for one thing, and joyful for another; especially so far as sorrow and joy imply simple acts of the will; because, not merely in different things, but even in one and the same thing, there can be something that we will, and something that we will not.

Reply to Objection 2: As there is sorrow in the demons over present evil, so also there is fear of future evil. Now when it is said, “He was made to fear no one,” this is to be understood of the fear of God which restrains from sin. For it is written elsewhere that “the devils believe and tremble” (James 2:19).

Reply to Objection 3: To be sorry for the evil of sin on account of the sin bears witness to the goodness of the will, to which the evil of sin is opposed. But to be sorry for the evil of punishment, for the evil of sin on account of the punishment, bears witness to the goodness of nature, to which the evil of punishment is opposed. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 13), that “sorrow for good lost by punishment, is the witness to a good nature.” Consequently, since the demon has a perverse and obstinate will, he is not sorry for the evil of sin.

Whether our atmosphere is the demons’ place of punishment?

Objection 1: It would seem that this atmosphere is not the demons’ place of punishment. For a demon is a spiritual nature. But a spiritual nature is not affected by place. Therefore there is no place of punishment for demons.

Objection 2: Further, man’s sin is not graver than the demons’. But man’s place of punishment is hell. Much more, therefore, is it the demons’ place of punishment; and consequently not the darksome atmosphere.

Objection 3: Further, the demons are punished with the pain of fire. But there is no fire in the darksome atmosphere. Therefore the darksome atmosphere is not the place of punishment for the demons.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. iii, 10), that “the darksome atmosphere is as a prison to the demons until the judgment day.”

I answer that, The angels in their own nature stand midway between God and men. Now the order of Divine providence so disposes, that it procures the welfare of the inferior orders through the superior. But man’s welfare is disposed by Divine providence in two ways: first of all, directly, when a man is brought unto good and withheld from evil; and this is fittingly done through the good angels. In another way, indirectly, as when anyone assailed is exercised by fighting against opposition. It was fitting for this procuring of man’s welfare to be brought about through the wicked spirits, lest they should cease to be of service in the natural order. Consequently a twofold place of punishment is due to the demons: one, by reason of their sin, and this is hell; and another, in order that they may tempt men, and thus the darksome atmosphere is their due place of punishment.

Now the procuring of men’s salvation is prolonged even to the judgment day: consequently, the ministry of the angels and wrestling with demons endure until then. Hence until then the good angels are sent to us here; and the demons are in this dark atmosphere for our trial: although some of them are even now in hell, to torment those whom they have led astray; just as some of the good angels are with the holy souls in heaven. But after the judgment day all the wicked, both men and angels, will be in hell, and the good in heaven.

Reply to Objection 1: A place is not penal to angel or soul as if affecting the nature by changing it, but as affecting the will by saddening it: because the angel or the soul apprehends that it is in a place not agreeable to its will.

Reply to Objection 2: One soul is not set over another in the order of nature, as the demons are over men in the order of nature; consequently there is no parallel.

Reply to Objection 3: Some have maintained that the pain of sense for demons and souls is postponed until the judgment day: and that the beatitude of the saints is likewise postponed until the judgment day. But this is erroneous, and contrary to the teaching of the Apostle (2 Cor. 5:1): “If our earthly house of this habitation be dissolved, we have a house in heaven.” Others, again, while not admitting the same of souls, admit it as to demons. But it is better to say that the same judgment is passed upon wicked souls and wicked angels, even as on good souls and good angels.

Consequently, it must be said that, although a heavenly place belongs to the glory of the angels, yet their glory is not lessened by their coming to us, for they consider that place to be their own; in the same way as we say that the bishop’s honor is not lessened while he is not actually sitting on his throne. In like manner it must be said, that although the demons are not actually bound within the fire of hell while they are in this dark atmosphere, nevertheless their punishment is none the less; because they know that such confinement is their due. Hence it is said in a gloss upon James 3:6: “They carry fire of hell with them wherever they go.” Nor is this contrary to what is said (Lk. 8:31), “They besought the Lord not to cast them into the abyss”; for they asked for this, deeming it to be a punishment for them to be cast out of a place where they could injure men. Hence it is stated, “They [Vulg. ‘He’] besought Him that He would not expel them [Vulg. ‘him’] out of the country” (Mk. 5:10).